The Bible is literally true.

[Nighthawk 0]

I seriously think the only thing that has prevented "christian scientists" from attacking quantum mechanics is that almost none of them understand it. On the other hand, they purport to understand evolution (despite being totally oblivious to the fact that evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin) and think that the "you can prove this, so my alternative must be true" approach has some sort of merit.

The thing is, Hogan Made Wrestling, that you don't understand quantum mechanics either.

 

I don't understand why you have brought up twice now that creationists understand nothing beyond Darwin, because A) It has no relevance to this discussion, as nobody here has purported such a stance B) It isn't true. Christian scientists are much further ahead of the game than Penn and Teller would have you believe. C) A and B show that you have no knowlege of the current state of science.

 

I respect atheists, but you disgust me because you are willfully ignorant. I learned that from Anton LaVey.

[Guest SP-1]

I seriously think the only thing that has prevented "christian scientists" from attacking quantum mechanics is that almost none of them understand it. On the other hand, they purport to understand evolution (despite being totally oblivious to the fact that evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin) and think that the "you can prove this, so my alternative must be true" approach has some sort of merit.

 

Oh, and I can square a circle. That's not at all difficult.

Were you planning to contribute anything beneath that thinly disguised attack?

What exactly should be contributed to arguments against a scientific theory by people who are 1. unqualified to make scientific judgements and 2. are oblivious to modern advances? Once again, all the bible thumpers can say is DARWIN DARWIN DARWIN as the work of modern evolutionary biologists such as Mayr and Gould flies right over their heads.

Evidence?

 

That's right.

 

Simple word.

 

Evidence.

 

If you want to go down this path then we will. Which specific Christians do you have in mind. And if you come back with a couple of hackneyed nutballs that aren't even actually Christians, I'll laugh in your face and ignore anything else you post. I want respected scientists who happen to be Christians arguing against evolution. Not "Christian Scientists". Don't tell me they don't exist. They do. You're making the accusation so the burden of proof lies on you. Let's see if you really know what you're talking about.

[Guest croweater]

Gould:Revised Darwinism. From what I found he did nothing that could fly over anyones heads.

 

Mayr:If his theories on fossils don't go over my head, I don't understand why they'd go over any "Christian Scientists" head.

 

Neither of these said anything that would disprove creation, only added on to Darwin's theory. So even if everyone screams DARWIN DARWIN DARWIN it's still valid, because negating Darwin also negates Mayr and Gould.

 

I don't see why creation and evolution can't co-exist anyway.

[Guest Brian]

Josephus' wasn't a primary source. He was born in 37 CE.

[Nighthawk 0]

Wow, within a generation. Lots of historical records nobody has any trouble accepting weren't written until hundreds of years after the fact. If we limit ancient historical records to eyewitnesses, we cut out... damn, pretty much everything. Except the gospels.

[Guest SP-1]

Josephus' wasn't a primary source. He was born in 37 CE.

IDRM's response is spot on. He's close enough to the events and respected otherwise. It's stupid to give him credibility for everything else but ignore anything he says in a Bible discussion.

 

Also, if we're talking primary sources only, then we immediately fall back on the Gospels. Written by the men whom the events depict in 3 cases, and in 1 case by a man with educated credentials, a clear research ethic, and who traveled with Paul, who, by the way, dealt with . . . the men who were in the middle of it.

[Guest Brian]

Isn't Josephus account very broad and probably based on another document or source, such as Luke?

[chaosrage 0]

We do and here's an example.  An infant cannot act in a way which would be deserving of torture.  The idea itself that it could be is cruel.  The thought that someone would worship something that thinks it could be deserving is seriously revolting and scary at the same time. 

 

I told you a bunch of times he doesn't torture infants. You can't just pretend he does because it helps your argument. This is how you continually violate your own admonitions. Some people are revolted and scared that we would eat an animal. That doesn't make it so.

No time to respond to everything, but I had to get this.

 

David's son. You were the one that brought it up.

 

He doesn't die instantly. He's basically lying around suffering for 7 days before he dies because of God. I've never seen a christian able to defend it. Maybe you or SP can.

 

Now that we know God does torture infants, respond to that part up above again.

 

How can an infant deserve torture? And why would you want to worship someone who would torture one?

[Guest SP-1]

Isn't Josephus account very broad and probably based on another document or source, such as Luke?

Source?

 

That's not something I've come across. Which doesn't mean the theory isn't out there, but it's not something I've come across. And even if it were, there's no reason to put it in the negative. Luke was an educated Greek, most likely a doctor. His research was thorough and he was involved with those who were eyewitnesses to the events themselves. All things considered in the usual verification of historical documents, Luke is more reliable than most. IF Josephus used Luke as a source, it's a good source. You must also keep in mind, however, that Josephus was not a Christian, at least not that I've ever heard of. If he did use Luke, he would have probably ignored anything that would have directly proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and looked at it from a purely historical standpoint.

 

Even if he used Luke, he used Luke well.

[Guest Brian]

I mean that his passage has no recounting of any works, just a broad staement.

 

The thing was he did call Jesus the messiah, which bring the whole passage into question, considering he was writing a history of the Jews.

[chaosrage 0]

Why am I not surprised that SP thinks he knows who wrote Luke?

 

SP answer the question in my last post.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment...

But everyone has sinned after coming to believe in Christ... I know I won't be sorry every time if my girlfriend gives me a bj, and I know I haven't been sorry every time I've said the Lord's name in vain. Am I going to burn or what?

 

I'll get to the Catholic stuff later, btw.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I want respected scientists who happen to be Christians arguing against evolution. Not "Christian Scientists".

C'mon, SP, be a sport. It's all about the MAM, y'know.

[Guest Banders Kennany]

Anton LaVey is kind of a weird person to quote when defending the Bible's truths. Fun thread though.

[Guest croweater]

We do and here's an example.  An infant cannot act in a way which would be deserving of torture.  The idea itself that it could be is cruel.  The thought that someone would worship something that thinks it could be deserving is seriously revolting and scary at the same time. 

 

I told you a bunch of times he doesn't torture infants. You can't just pretend he does because it helps your argument. This is how you continually violate your own admonitions. Some people are revolted and scared that we would eat an animal. That doesn't make it so.

No time to respond to everything, but I had to get this.

 

David's son. You were the one that brought it up.

 

He doesn't die instantly. He's basically lying around suffering for 7 days before he dies because of God. I've never seen a christian able to defend it. Maybe you or SP can.

 

Now that we know God does torture infants, respond to that part up above again.

 

How can an infant deserve torture? And why would you want to worship someone who would torture one?

God doesn't torture people.

People torture people.

[Nighthawk 0]

He doesn't die instantly. He's basically lying around suffering for 7 days before he dies because of God. I've never seen a christian able to defend it. Maybe you or SP can.

Sure. For one, it doesn't really say that. It says he was struck ill and died seven days later. There's nothing about the nature of the illness, or suffering. It could have been a coma for all we know. And if you've watched enough movies, you know that a coma could well be the funnest thing to ever happen to you.

[Nighthawk 0]

The thing was he did call Jesus the messiah, which bring the whole passage into question, considering he was writing a history of the Jews.

I would most likely consider that statement to be a Christian addition, or perhaps modification, but it doesn't negate the passage. That statement is out of charcter for Josephus, but there's nothing extraoridnary about the rest of the passage. It's not the only time he mentioned Jesus either.

[Nighthawk 0]

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment...

But everyone has sinned after coming to believe in Christ... I know I won't be sorry every time if my girlfriend gives me a bj, and I know I haven't been sorry every time I've said the Lord's name in vain. Am I going to burn or what?

The phrase is "go on sinning willfully" which is not the same as stumbling into sin occasionally. If you intentionally sin and are not sorry for it, yeah, you'll most likely burn. Not because of the sin, but because the fact that you do do it shows that you never received any salvation. This is, again, what 1 John says. "The man who says 'I know him' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him." On the other hand, if someone has been saved, all their sins are forgiven forever, no matter what. A characterization of sin is just evidence that this hasn't happened.

[Guest SP-1]

Why am I not surprised that SP thinks he knows who wrote Luke?

 

SP answer the question in my last post.

1. Show me evidence detracting from the authorship of Luke. Credible evidence. Not shit you make up or pull from sources with a clear agenda who don't generally know what they're talking about.

 

2. Why? You weren't having that discussion with me, you were having it with IDRM. Don't try to change who you're arguing with because the guy you got into it with is making valid points against you.

 

You don't have a clue about what you're saying half the time when you try to argue scripture itself. You don't have the slightest sense of language or contextual/hermeneutical study and then you try to ignore anything anyone else says when you realize you're in trouble. I don't spend my time arguing with you because its impossible have an intelligent discussion with you past 2 or 3 replies.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

All Gospels after Mark are just adaptations/extentions.

[Guest SP-1]

All Gospels after Mark are just adaptations/extentions.

UYI, please don't make statements like that without an explanation or a case. That's a theory on authorship, not a hardline fact.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

And here was I hoping you'd shoot back and disprove that.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

I have issues discussing the Gospels as being 'credible' in any sense of the word, as it seems apparent, to me at least, that they are based on stories that preceded them.

 

For example, take 'Matthew's' depiction of Christ's birth, where Herod secretly plots to murder Jesus because he percieves the so-called Messiah as a direct threat. This same format of 'ruler intimidated by main character and seeks to eliminate him' is evident in a plethora of ancient stories of the time, associated to individuals such as Abraham, Sargon the Great, Augustus and Moses. This is simply a way of depicting a 'great birth to a great figure'. Who is to say Matthew's story is not just an invention based from preceding tales? The evidence is there.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

This same format of 'ruler intimidated by main character and seeks to eliminate him' is evident in a plethora of ancient stories of the time, associated to individuals such as Abraham, Sargon the Great, Augustus and Moses. This is simply a way of depicting a 'great birth to a great figure'. Who is to say Matthew's story is not just an invention based from preceding tales? The evidence is there.

Abraham?

[Nighthawk 0]

This is why this stuff never makes any headway. UYI, who is still my pal, has reported this because he read it somewhere, and apparently hasn't studied it himself at all. I mean... Abraham?

 

The idea that the gospel of Mark is the form by which all gospels are measured is without merit. For one, if we are to assume that Mark is an accurate biographical account, and if you think we shouldn't, state why, then there's nothing at all wrong with the other two gospels being influenced by it, especially if you accept the view that it was based on the recollections of Peter, a member of Jesus' inner circle, and privy to information the other disciples and Luke weren't. John was also one of Jesus' inner three, and as you can see, his gospel is clearly not based on Mark. The gospel of John is the other reason UYI doesn't seem to know quite as much as he should before he starts throwing accusations.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment...

But everyone has sinned after coming to believe in Christ... I know I won't be sorry every time if my girlfriend gives me a bj, and I know I haven't been sorry every time I've said the Lord's name in vain. Am I going to burn or what?

The phrase is "go on sinning willfully" which is not the same as stumbling into sin occasionally. If you intentionally sin and are not sorry for it, yeah, you'll most likely burn. Not because of the sin, but because the fact that you do do it shows that you never received any salvation. This is, again, what 1 John says. "The man who says 'I know him' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him." On the other hand, if someone has been saved, all their sins are forgiven forever, no matter what.

So, basically if I admit that certain temptations are just too hard to avoid while still acknowledging that they are sins, it's ok... but the downfall is in saying I'm ok because they are not sins? Or are my examples not sins anyway?

 

A characterization of sin is just evidence that this hasn't happened.

I'm sorry, can you clarify this for me? I don't quite understand what you're getting at.

[Nighthawk 0]

So, basically if I admit that certain temptations are just too hard to avoid while still acknowledging that they are sins, it's ok... but the downfall is in saying I'm ok because they are not sins? Or are my examples not sins anyway?

 

Well, you shouldn't be admitting that certain temptations are too hard to avoid, you should be purposing to never sin. You will, because this is the nature of the flesh, but you should not be ok with it, it should bother you and you should confess it. Confess does not mean admit (although hiding sin doesn't help either), by the way, the Greek is a combination of two words and it means to agree with God about the sin. We know how God feels about sin, so you should feel the same way.

 

A characterization of sin is just evidence that this hasn't happened.

I'm sorry, can you clarify this for me? I don't quite understand what you're getting at.

 

What I just said should be your natural state because upon salvation, the Spirit of God comes and dwells within you. Because of this, you start to feel about sin the same way God does. If you continue to sin, as a general characteristic, in other words, if your behavior is characterized by sin, and you feel no conviction for it, this is evidence that God is not in you, and you have therefore not been saved.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Hey SP or whomever, have you guys heard of a book called the Pagan Christ? I forgot the author's name to be honest, but it basically talks about the problem with literalism, not to mention shows how older Egyptian cultures believed the exact same thing as Christians do way before there was such a thing as Christ, like the virgin mother, death and resurrection, etc. Just something to throw out there.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

So, basically if I admit that certain temptations are just too hard to avoid while still acknowledging that they are sins, it's ok... but the downfall is in saying I'm ok because they are not sins? Or are my examples not sins anyway?

 

Well, you shouldn't be admitting that certain temptations are too hard to avoid, you should be purposing to never sin. You will, because this is the nature of the flesh, but you should not be ok with it, it should bother you and you should confess it. Confess does not mean admit (although hiding sin doesn't help either), by the way, the Greek is a combination of two words and it means to agree with God about the sin. We know how God feels about sin, so you should feel the same way.

Since we both have been on this board a while, are you bothered by all of the things you've done?

 

Also, I guess I have a hard time with being told to be pessimistic about my very nature. I mean I understand I'm not perfect, that I need God... I just don't get the idea that I need to be so ashamed of myself just for living.

 

Or maybe I misunderstood something.

[Guest SP-1]

We were talking about this earlier today, actually. And, really, this kind of talk comes from combined years of biblical study amongst the group I was with that was having the discussion.

 

Essentially, IF you are a Christian . . . there's not much of a need to be ashamed anymore. There's no need for self-loathing. You are IN CHRIST. When God looks at you, he doesn't see the sinful, fallen creature anymore. He sees the perfection of Christ. The modern church, especially in the west, has this mindset that we are, "sinners with the capability of being righteous", but once you begin really examining scripture as a regenerate believer, it begins to become apparent that it is just the reverse. We are righteous but capable of sinning every now and then. Righteous in God's sight because of Christ, but because we are in the middle of a process and still in the flesh here on earth, we are capable of sinning. More importantly, we are capable of not sinning because we are regenerate as well.

 

There's a movement back towards solid biblical teaching happening right now, and it's interesting that a redeemed point of view on the self is coming with it. Which is good.

 

UYI: IDRM brought up pretty valid points. One thing about the Mark theory is that the gospels weren't written at the same time, nor in the same places, and not always under similar circumstances. That they relay similar or the same information in places doesn't mean they were copies. It could also just mean that they're simply telling what actually happened. You must also keep in mind the audiences and intent of each gospel. Luke was writing an accurate account of events to Theophilus. Matthew's tone tends to lean towards the Jewish mindset. John is fairly theological and intimate in tone. etc.

 

You're making the claim in this case against something that's generally held to be true. The burden of proof is on you. I have enough to research here at school without spending hours trying to answer a vague accusation online.